1 Congress appropriated $102,300,000 for construction at 4 classified locations. Of this amount $40,000,000 was for French Morocco. Does not include the reprograming of $6,000,000 of Public Law 843, 81st Cong., funds referred to in note 9 under the schedule of appropriations. This request indicated that $3,324,200 of Public Law 843, 81st Cong., funds for the French Morocco program was being deferred in order to make funds available for higher priority projects. 2 The $11,400,000 of Public Law 843, 81st Cong., funds was requested for avdance planning, procurement of fuel storage and dispensing equipment, and mobilization of heavy construction equipment. 3 Public Law 911, 81st Cong., funds. 4 This request showed that previous borrowings, such as described in note 1 above, from Public Law 843, 81st Cong., to permit initiation of certain priority projects in anticipation of enactment of Public Law 911, 81st Cong., were being repaid from Public Law 911, 81st Cong., funds. The balance of the French Morocco portion of Public Law 843, 81st Cong., funds were released. 6 The $100,000,000 request transmitted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to the Bureau of the Budget reflected a $45,762,500 reduction in the Air Force request to the Comptroller. The Comptroller's Office requested that the Air Force review the French Morocco program and present to his office the work accomplished with prior funds and the work proposed for accomplishment with the 1952 funds before any further apportionments would be made. The Air Force informed the Comptroller's office by memorandum on February 28, that it was estimated that the $22,500,000 apportionment request would sustain the necessary operations until Mar. 15, 1952. The Bureau of the Budget approved apportionment of these funds on an urgency basis with the understanding that the funds would not be used to construct family housing, hospital, and community and recreational facilities without prior approval in accordance with established procedures. It was also understood that clearance from the appropriate congressional committees was to be obtained for deviations from the program as originally presented. The Office of the Comptroller, OSD, indicated that the items covered in this apportionment request were authorized, did not include family housing, hospital, or community and recreational facilities, and that no further apportionments would be requested until the Air Force obtained proper clearance from the congressional committees on those elements which depart from the original justification. The Bureau of the Budget approved apportionment on the basis of the foregoing information and the urgency of the funding requirements. There was no apportionment for French Morocco in this request; however, material submitted with the request listed among other congressional clearances a clearance for the French Morocco reprograming. This included the use of an additional $6,000,000 from Public Law 843, 81st Cong., to be applied to French Morocco from deletions. 1 The apportionment request of $1,200.000 was for a 75-bed hospital on a 150-bed chassis at Ben Guerir. The Bureau of the Budget approved $1,100,000 for a 100-bed hospital on a 100-bed chassis with the underFootnotes continued on p. 574. Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Chairman, the last thing on the record is the movement of this testimony. Yesterday's testimony I gave to Mr. Turner of the Air Force. It has got to move through all four bodies before it is in print and we want to get it in print by the early part of next week. Mr. TURNER. I reviewed it for General Asensio and turned it over to Mr. Upton's representative. Mr. DONNELLY. He will have the responsibility of forwarding it through the Corps of Engineers, Office of Secretary of Defense, and the Bureau of the Budget. Today's testimony I shall tomorrow morning give to Mr. Garlock. He can handle it that way, so that this may be printed by the middle of next week. Mr. RILEY. Thank you, gentlemen. That concludes the hearing. standing that a coordinated medical facility construction program for French Morocco would be developed in the near future. The apportionment request for $36,139,000 was reduced by $3,062,000 for the following items: (1) Family housing. Nouaseur, $758,000; (2) hospital, Sidi Slimane, $1,000,000; (3) hospital, Nouaseur, $1,000,000; (4) medical facilities, Nouaseur, $136,000; and (5) a recreation building, Rabat-Sale, $168.000. Item 1 was not approved since the records of Bureau of the Budget do not show that a program for family housing in the area was ever authorized. Items 2, 3, and 4 were deferred for development of a complete, coordinated plan for medical facilities in the areas, and relationship of these facilities to that plan. Item 5 was deferred with out prejudice as a community and recreation facility to be reviewed in accordance with established procedures for items of this type. 13 As of May 15, 1952. APPENDIX The following documentation was submitted by the Atlas Constructors in response to each of the specific allegations of criticism of the Moroccan air base operation on which the committee held hearings: QUESTIONS OF HOUSE SUBCOMMITEE; ANSWERS AND EXHIBITS BY ATLAS CONSTRUCTORS, MÁY 12, 1952 APPROPRIATIONS INDEX Answer Exhibit Question page page A. 1. Improper asphalt mixture (2 or 3 times too much asphalt); improper fill compaction; improper thickness of asphalt pavement. A. 2. A. 3. Improper base course gradation; improper asphalt mixes. 576 576 A. 4. Atlas' failure to follow instruction of architectural 577 engineer. A. 5. A. 6. B. 1. B. 3. Insufficient rollers; failure to rent French rollers.......... B. 2. Stock records not up to date; no records of receipts B. 4. No O. S. and D. reports.. B. 5. Lack of security, staging area. A. FAILURE OF ATLAS CONSTRUCTORS TO COMPLY WITH SPECIFICATIONS 1. QUESTION It was alleged that Atlas permitted improper mixture of aggregate and asphalt, using two or three times more asphalt than the specifications called for; that there was an improper compaction of fill material, contrary to requirements of the specifications; that the runways constructed at Nouaseur had only 4 inches of asphalt concrete on a 2,000-foot end of the runway, and that the inner 7,000 feet length was constructed of only 3 inches of asphalt concrete, notwithstanding the fact that the Engineer Field Manual specifies that the minimum thickness of asphalt concrete runways designed for loads in excess of 60,000 pounds should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. (Wise, James, special assistant to Air Inspector General-before Lyndon Johnson subcommittee-pp. 726, 747, 753.) Response of Atlas It is alleged that there was two or three times more asphalt used in the mix than was called for. The attached exhibit shows that at Nouaseur 14,112 tons of asphalt were used in producing 240,696 tons of asphaltic concrete or an average of 6.50 pounds of asphalt per 100 pounds of aggregate; at Sidi Slimane 14,035 tons of asphalt were used in producing 272,933 tons of asphaltic concrete or an average of 5.42 pounds of asphalt per 100 pounds of aggregate. This results in an over-all average of 5.80 pounds of asphalt per 100 pounds of aggregate as compared with the 12 to 15 pounds alleged by Mr. Wise. The difference in quantities at the two locations is due to the difference in the quality of the aggregates. The quantity of asphalt to be used in the asphaltic concrete was always set by a representative of the district engineer and was automatically measured by a flowmeter. Hourly tests were made to see that the proper quantities of all materials were being used. The introduction into the mix of two or three times more asphalt than specified as alleged by Mr. Wise would be easily detected by a visual inspection. It is alleged that there was improper compaction of fill material. Atlas purchased rollers for use in fill compaction as directed by the district engineer. This equipment was used and compaction done under the direction of the district engineer and his representatives and to their satisfaction. It is alleged that the runway at Nouaseur was constructed of asphalt pavement of lesser thickness than required by the Engineer Field Manual. Exhibit D-27-(a), sheets 1 and 2, statement C. B. Wuertenberger, Asphalt Mix, March 31, 1952. 2. QUESTION It was alleged that the base course materials and mixes did not meet gradation requirements and that "some bleeding and perhaps rutting and shoving might be expected, particularly in areas of concentrated traffic" (John Griffith, research engineer, Asphalt Institute, before Lyndon Johnson subcommittee-p. 840). Response of Atlas Base course material was produced with the equipment purchased for that purpose in accordance with the directions of the district engineer. This material consisted of crusher-run aggregate and it was not intended that any but the maximum size be controlled. The material met the requirements set by the district engineer which were such as to make use of the local material and the equipment on hand. Additional equipment has recently been purchased to allow gradation. Asphalt mixes were set and periodically checked by a representative of the district engineer. Atlas had no part in the design, checking, or testing of mixes. 3. QUESTION It was alleged that the amount of testing which was done by Atlas was not sufficient in volume to meet the standards of good construction practices (Griffith, p. 839). Response of Atlas Atlas is not required to make any tests. All tests are made by the district engineer or his representatives. 4. QUESTION It was alleged that Atlas failed in many instances to follow the instructions of the representatives of the architect-engineer relative to compliance with specifications (Wise, James, p. 772; Harold Simmons, area engineer, Porter- Urquhart, p. 554, before Lyndon Johnson subcommittee). Response of Atlas Atlas has been instructed by the district engineer that in order to prevent confusion, all instructions to Atlas would be given by the district engineer or his designated representative. There is no direct relation between Atlas and the architect-engineer and in view of the above instructions, Atlas cannot accept instructions from the representatives of the architect-engineer. 5. QUESTION It was alleged that Atlas utilized an insufficient number of rollers in connection with the compaction of the asphalt runways, notwithstanding the fact that a sufficient number of rollers could have been rented from the French Publique Organization (Wise, p. 738). It was further alleged that Atlas utilized only one roller behind the laying machine when he should have used two or three rollers behind the laying machine, and it was stated that the guide specifications applicable to the work spelled out the number of rollers to be used behind the laying machine and the details of their use (Griffith, pp. 839–852). Response of Atlas There was a total of twelve asphalt rollers on the work at the time of the above allegation. These rollers were sufficient to meet the rolling requirements set up by the district engineer. In addition, it was found that the rollers availab for rent from the French Publique Organization did not meet require nents for weight and size. It was determined by the district engineer and the contractor that such additional rollers were not needed. 6. QUESTION In summary, the allegations are that because of the failure to meet standard construction requirements the runways, taxiways, and aprons at the two air bases (Nouaseur and Sidi Slimane) are not satisfactory, and will involve substantial maintenance expense; that their unsatisfactory condition is demonstrated by several breaks in the apron at Nouasseur, and cracking in 2,000 feet of taxi-way at Sidi Slimane. Response of Atlas It is our opinion that the principal reason for any failures in the runways, taxiways and aprons is the lack of proper drainage. This drainage was not installed ahead of construction as would normally be done because of lack of plans and failure to provide rights-of-way for outlet ditches, which we understand wer held up by the French. Tue Construction of the Nouasseur operations apron began about June 6, 1951, and the asphalt binder course was completed about October 30, 1951. Construction was accomplished during the period of the "crash program." failure occurred during a test of the uncompleted surface with a 200-ton roller at a time when the subbase and base course were saturated due to unprecedented rains on the unfinished area. Atlas protested the use of the 200-ton roller on the unfinished surface at a time when the underlying material was in a saturated condition, but the test was made anyway and the base failed. Due to lack of plans and despite Atlas' repeated request for them, the drainage of the operations apron was not constructed in advance of the base course. Final drainage plans were received November 16, 1951 after the tests with the 200-ton roller were started. The base course material used was produced with the equipment purchased in accordance with the original instructions from the district engineer. The naterial used was inspected and approved by representatives of the district engineer. |